75 Year Olds with Cancer Get Treatment. Autistic Toddlers Doomed To Diagnosis For Life?
Curando el Autismo on VoiceAmerica Today Noon

The Scandalous History of MMR in the UK

General Medical Council By John Stone

The updated ChildHealthSafety documentary account tracing events back to a hidden deal between the UK government and the manufacturers in 1988 involving a product already banned in Canada, and the astonishing array of conflicts among Andrew Wakefield’s persecutors, all the way to the present General Medical Council hearing in London can be found here (HERE). First posted last January, amid rumours that important new documents were to be made available through Freedom of Information, the information about the improper relations between government and industry was already damning.  Whatever  “the findings on fact” when the hearing resumes on Thursday there can be no excuse the continuing naive reporting of these events.

“The person who commissioned Deer was Paul Nuki, Sunday Times’ sometime Head of Newsroom investigations and “Focus” editor.  Paul Nuki is son of Professor George Nuki. Professor George Nuki in 1987 sat on the Committee on Safety of Medicines when the CSM was considering Glaxo company Smith Kline & French Laboratories’ Pluserix MMR vaccine for safety approval.  The CSM approved Pluserix MMR but it caused very high levels of adverse reactions and was withdrawn by the manufacturers on very little notice in late 1992 leaving the Department of Health in an embarrassing position...”

“Professor Denis McDevitt was due in July 2007 to chair the unprecedented British General Medical Council hearing of the case of Doctors Wakefield, Murch and Professor Walker-Smith.  McDevitt and the GMC failed to declare McDevitt’s personal involvement in approving the dangerous Pluserix MMR vaccine in 1988.  He only stood down after Jamie Doward of the Observer, Martyn Halle, freelance journalist for the Sunday Express, Andy Wilks of the Mail on Sunday, Jenny Hope of the Daily Mail and Heather Mills of Private Eye challenged the GMC over the matter. ["MMR Conflict of Interest Zone" Private Eye - June 2007]

Read more at ChildHealthSafety.

John Stone is UK Contributing Editor of Age of Autism.



Angus Files

I dont know if this is the same family Mc Devitt but Dr Alan Mc Devitt chairs the BMA if it is the same family they are no better than Cerberus guarding the gates of hell.

It looks like to me that they have now removed the cash incentive for Drs in Scotland administering vaccines.They can still get paid for giving vaccines but the Scottish Goverment have devised and decided that where possible nurses working in mobile vaccine buses can tour and administer vaccines.The funding which at one time went straight to the practice used by the Drs is now not the case .Vaccine nurses etc will be paid and the bounus cash payment once enjoyed by Drs will be no more or greatly lessened. Hoorah!! I say, maybe we will be able to get an un-biased on vaccines opinion from a Dr now.It essentially salaries the doctors with no bonus payment for vaccines.

So I think who is the winner?Looks to me like the vaccine manufacturers and families who have patents on these vaccines are.The cost to Governments will reduceor stay the same as they no longer have to pay Drs to hard sell it.So all we now do is wait for compulsory vaccination as the vaccination "herd" levels drop in Scotland.

My letter supporting the Drs printed in my local paper below this week. It really bothers me that the Scottish Government are a bunch of traitors.

Dear Sits

“Chairman moves to reassure patients over new GP contracts”

I find it unfortunate Dr Mc Devitt has resorted to sugar coating the real concerns of rural GP`s and their concerns which are also being parked until a later date by the Scottish Government.

Dr Alan Mc Devitt states “claims of impending funding cuts are not true” and that rural practices funding is protected. This in the short term Dr Devitt is correct but only for 3-5 years when subsides, created by the new GP contract, will be reassessed.

Under the new GP contract a "work allocation system” is created in the contract.Around 80% of GP`s practices in Rural Scotland are on “protected income status” this has only been guaranteed for 3-5 years.Dr Devitt and the Scottish Government need to answer Who will subsidise, the rural practices after this 3-5 year trial?Will the ever financially stretched NHS be tasked with funding GPs? or will the Scottish Government continue indefinitely to subsidise rural GP`s?if they had a clear plan surely they would make it clear now.There is no cast in stone commitment to the long-term future of Scotland's Health whatsoever. How can any aspiring GP or practising GP`s see this as a sound business footing to work in rural areas of Scotland its not,in my opinion. This new contract only seems to serve the self-interests of the board on the BMA approved by the Scottish Government to the detriment of Scotland.

If readers wish they can visit a website that gives the real concerns of Rural GP`s and the unfactored `challenges` for GP`s in Rural areas. https://ruralgp.scot/rememberrural/

Angus Files

PHARMA for prison


Janet Sheehan

Autism affects 1 in 38 British boys?????OMG


Thank you, John. I have some reading to do. For some reason, what's going on in the UK makes me sicker than what's happening here.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)